## Facts

- Ann Marie Meagher, a psychiatrist working part-time and nearing retirement, began a romantic and business relationship with Malekpour Maleki, a real-estate broker and investor.
- Before marriage, Maleki represented himself as wealthy and financially sophisticated; Meagher relied on these representations.
- With Maleki’s advice and participation, Meagher purchased three residential investment properties; Maleki acted as broker on one and sold two to Meagher, promising reimbursement upon sale.
- The parties signed a handwritten agreement stating the properties were in Meagher’s name but “owned 50/50” with costs shared equally; Meagher understood this reflected paid-for interests and reimbursement.
- After marrying in 1999, Meagher later learned the parties lacked sufficient funds; when she sought information, Maleki threatened divorce unless she transferred joint ownership of all her assets (including home and pension).
- The trial court found Maleki not credible and concluded he misrepresented his financial condition and engaged in business conduct aimed at gaining control of Meagher’s assets.
- Meagher pursued nullity (annulment) based on fraud; the trial court granted annulment; Maleki appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether premarital financial misrepresentations and fraud in business dealings intended to obtain control of a spouse’s assets constitute fraud going to the “very essence of the marriage relation” sufficient to support annulment under California law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of nullity.
- Fraud supporting annulment is limited to extreme cases where the deception goes to the “very essence” of marriage; the misconduct found here was primarily financial and business-related.
- Even egregious deception about wealth and asset control, without proof of intent to avoid fundamental marital obligations, is insufficient as a matter of law to annul the marriage.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the conclusion that dissolution and related financial remedies, not annulment, were the proper avenues.

## Legal Principles

- Annulment for fraud is available only in an extreme case where the fraud goes to the “very essence of the marriage relation.”
- Qualifying fraud generally concerns deception about fundamental marital obligations (e.g., intent not to cohabit, not to engage in sexual relations, not to have children, or comparable conduct defeating basic marital expectations).
- Misrepresentations about wealth, income, debt, or business prospects—even if material to the decision to marry—ordinarily do not constitute fraud sufficient to void a marriage; such wrongdoing is addressed through dissolution and property/financial claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that premarital financial misrepresentations and asset-directed business fraud, without deception that defeats fundamental marital obligations, cannot support annulment for fraud under California law, requiring reversal of the nullity judgment and leaving financial redress to dissolution-related remedies.


In re Marriage of Meagher & Maleki, 31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)